[R]ussell’s Paradox (a version of the liar’s paradox), is not a paradox, it’s an ill formed statement (Grammatical error) because it failed the test of continuously recursive ambiguity – which is what ‘grammar’ means: rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. Nearly all seemingly challenging philosophical questions play on some variation of the verb to be. In the case of the liar’s paradox in all its forms, it’s not a paradox it’s constructed ambiguity. Words don’t mean things. People mean things. They use language well or not well to state their meaning – or their deceit. A number is the name of a position, and beyond the base (glyphs) we use ‘Positional Naming’. We can name anything we choose with a position in an order just like we can name anything else. All that matters is that we all rely on the same names in the same order. Numbers exist as names. That’s it. Nothing else. Mathematics is ill-grounded (vulnerable to grammatical errors) because of sets (platonic, ideal, verbal) rather than operations (gears and geometry). If you explain all mathematics using positional names, gears, and geometry (as it was invented) you do not expose yourself to grammatical errors. The same is true of philosophical (verbal) statements. If you state all statements as promises, in operational prose, in complete sentences, without the ‘cheat’ (or lie) of the verb to be, you will have a very difficult time make grammatical errors. So the entire analytic program (sets) was a failure. So was the attempt to discover a via-positiva scientific method. This is because all epistemology is falsificationary and adversarial, with surviving truth propositions competing in networks of paradigms themselves in falsificationary and adversarial competition. Most of philosophy is little more than sophistry. (really) Everything that isn’t sophistry is in the domain of science including that science we call ‘grammar’. 17Serg Gio, Stephen Thoma
Theme: Decidability
-
Russell’ S Paradox Isnt.
[R]ussell’s Paradox (a version of the liar’s paradox), is not a paradox, it’s an ill formed statement (Grammatical error) because it failed the test of continuously recursive ambiguity – which is what ‘grammar’ means: rules of continuous recursive disambiguation. Nearly all seemingly challenging philosophical questions play on some variation of the verb to be. In the case of the liar’s paradox in all its forms, it’s not a paradox it’s constructed ambiguity. Words don’t mean things. People mean things. They use language well or not well to state their meaning – or their deceit. A number is the name of a position, and beyond the base (glyphs) we use ‘Positional Naming’. We can name anything we choose with a position in an order just like we can name anything else. All that matters is that we all rely on the same names in the same order. Numbers exist as names. That’s it. Nothing else. Mathematics is ill-grounded (vulnerable to grammatical errors) because of sets (platonic, ideal, verbal) rather than operations (gears and geometry). If you explain all mathematics using positional names, gears, and geometry (as it was invented) you do not expose yourself to grammatical errors. The same is true of philosophical (verbal) statements. If you state all statements as promises, in operational prose, in complete sentences, without the ‘cheat’ (or lie) of the verb to be, you will have a very difficult time make grammatical errors. So the entire analytic program (sets) was a failure. So was the attempt to discover a via-positiva scientific method. This is because all epistemology is falsificationary and adversarial, with surviving truth propositions competing in networks of paradigms themselves in falsificationary and adversarial competition. Most of philosophy is little more than sophistry. (really) Everything that isn’t sophistry is in the domain of science including that science we call ‘grammar’. 17Serg Gio, Stephen Thoma
-
Testimony (P and Contingency)
by Robert Danis [W]hat I like most about your writings for P is that your breaking it down into the smallest possible component. Most people try to take a something as a whole and you can’t – you have to break it down into components.
===IMPORTANT== 1. Continuous recursive disambiguation 2. Convert all speech to transactions stated in a series of subjectively (humanly) testable operations. Meaning: first causes. 😉 And as first causes, there are no contingent premises. And as non-contingent P is closed to deception by suggestion that is dependent upon ambiguity and contingency. This is why P defeats set logic – which is forever contingent.
-
Testimony (P and Contingency)
by Robert Danis [W]hat I like most about your writings for P is that your breaking it down into the smallest possible component. Most people try to take a something as a whole and you can’t – you have to break it down into components.
===IMPORTANT== 1. Continuous recursive disambiguation 2. Convert all speech to transactions stated in a series of subjectively (humanly) testable operations. Meaning: first causes. 😉 And as first causes, there are no contingent premises. And as non-contingent P is closed to deception by suggestion that is dependent upon ambiguity and contingency. This is why P defeats set logic – which is forever contingent.
-
re: “I Never Err”
RE: “I NEVER ERR” I don’t think you understand what I mean by that statement. I mean that if I write a constructivist proof in P-logic that I don’t err. The reason is that it’s so damned difficult – impossible really – to err if you write one. But sure, I make mistakes all the time, like everyone else. A mistake has no bearing on the outcome. An error has a bearing on the outcome. It is very very difficult to make an error in P-logic. The phrasing “I never err” is to bait the other party into making an argument, thereby minimizing the frame I need to work within, rather than forcing me to explain with a wall of text in order to discover the opponent’s frame. All of this explanation written down on the “Criticisms” page links on the site. The purpose of P-logic is falsificationary: we create definitions that consists of series, and supply demand curves, and use them to create fields of arguments that falsify more than justify. So P-logic seeks to expose so many falsehoods that only truthful statements can survive. As such where traditional philosophy seeks to find agreement between parties, P-logic falsifies all possibilities other than what we must agree to. In other words, the purpose of P-logic is to eliminate falsehood. It suppresses falsehood, bias, and deceit. And this is so novel that without some experience with math, computer science, or economics, it’s somewhere between counter-intuitive and inconceivable for most people. And that’s because P-logic is prosecutorial. You do’t end up disagreeing. You end up exposing the other party as a thief. This is why P-logic is so powerful. If the technique offends you, then It’s possible you haven’t run a large organization, participated in politics, or competed in the courts against people who are dishonest. I have. I don’t presume the other party has a moral character, has good intentions, is intellectually honest, or even has any more degree of agency than a puppy. I assume everyone is a gene machine and that agency and self awareness are rare occurrences. And I assume I am a gene machine too – it’s just that my gene machine brought me here, to this function, at this point in time. And the court-jester that is my internal personality is just along for the ride.
-
re: “I Never Err”
RE: “I NEVER ERR” I don’t think you understand what I mean by that statement. I mean that if I write a constructivist proof in P-logic that I don’t err. The reason is that it’s so damned difficult – impossible really – to err if you write one. But sure, I make mistakes all the time, like everyone else. A mistake has no bearing on the outcome. An error has a bearing on the outcome. It is very very difficult to make an error in P-logic. The phrasing “I never err” is to bait the other party into making an argument, thereby minimizing the frame I need to work within, rather than forcing me to explain with a wall of text in order to discover the opponent’s frame. All of this explanation written down on the “Criticisms” page links on the site. The purpose of P-logic is falsificationary: we create definitions that consists of series, and supply demand curves, and use them to create fields of arguments that falsify more than justify. So P-logic seeks to expose so many falsehoods that only truthful statements can survive. As such where traditional philosophy seeks to find agreement between parties, P-logic falsifies all possibilities other than what we must agree to. In other words, the purpose of P-logic is to eliminate falsehood. It suppresses falsehood, bias, and deceit. And this is so novel that without some experience with math, computer science, or economics, it’s somewhere between counter-intuitive and inconceivable for most people. And that’s because P-logic is prosecutorial. You do’t end up disagreeing. You end up exposing the other party as a thief. This is why P-logic is so powerful. If the technique offends you, then It’s possible you haven’t run a large organization, participated in politics, or competed in the courts against people who are dishonest. I have. I don’t presume the other party has a moral character, has good intentions, is intellectually honest, or even has any more degree of agency than a puppy. I assume everyone is a gene machine and that agency and self awareness are rare occurrences. And I assume I am a gene machine too – it’s just that my gene machine brought me here, to this function, at this point in time. And the court-jester that is my internal personality is just along for the ride.
-
RE: “I NEVER ERR” I don’t think you understand what I mean by that statement. I
RE: “I NEVER ERR”
I don’t think you understand what I mean by that statement.
I mean that if I write a constructivist proof in P-logic that I don’t err.
The reason is that it’s so damned difficult – impossible really – to err if you write one.
But sure, I make mistakes all the time, like everyone else.
A mistake has no bearing on the outcome.
An error has a bearing on the outcome.
It is very very difficult to make an error in P-logic.
The phrasing “I never err” is to bait the other party into making an argument, thereby minimizing the frame I need to work within, rather than forcing me to explain with a wall of text in order to discover the opponent’s frame.
All of this explanation written down on the “Criticisms” page links on the site.
The purpose of P-logic is falsificationary: we create definitions that consists of series, and supply demand curves, and use them to create fields of arguments that falsify more than justify.
So P-logic seeks to expose so many falsehoods that only truthful statements can survive. As such where traditional philosophy seeks to find agreement between parties, P-logic falsifies all possibilities other than what we must agree to.
In other words, the purpose of P-logic is to eliminate falsehood. It suppresses falsehood, bias, and deceit. And this is so novel that without some experience with math, computer science, or economics, it’s somewhere between counter-intuitive and inconceivable for most people.
And that’s because P-logic is prosecutorial. You do’t end up disagreeing. You end up exposing the other party as a thief. This is why P-logic is so powerful.
If the technique offends you, then It’s possible you haven’t run a large organization, participated in politics, or competed in the courts against people who are dishonest. I have.
I don’t presume the other party has a moral character, has good intentions, is intellectually honest, or even has any more degree of agency than a puppy. I assume everyone is a gene machine and that agency and self awareness are rare occurrences.
And I assume I am a gene machine too – it’s just that my gene machine brought me here, to this function, at this point in time. And the court-jester that is my internal personality is just along for the ride.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 05:36:00 UTC
-
RE: “I NEVER ERR” I don’t’ think you understand what I mean by that statement. I
RE: “I NEVER ERR”
I don’t’ think you understand what I mean by that statement.
I mean that if I write a constructivist proof that I don’t err.
The reason is that it’s so fking difficult to err if you write one.
The phrasing is to bait the other party into making an argument, thereby minimizing the frame, rather than forcing me to explain with a wall of text.
All of this explanation written down on the “Criticisms” page links on the site.
These statements offend you on a regular basis, for emotional reasons – probably because you can’t empathize with my methods. It’s because you attribute to my words the emotional intuition that you put into yours.
It’s possible you haven’t run a large organization, participated in politics, or competed in the courts against people who are dishonest. I have.
I don’t presume the other party has a moral character, has good intentions, is intellectually honest, or even has any more degree of agency than a puppy. I assume everyone is a gene machine and that agency and self awareness are rare occurrences.
And I assume I am a gene machine too – it’s just that my gene machine brought me here, to this function, at this point in time. And the court-jester that is my internal personality is just along for the ride.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-24 21:14:00 UTC
-
Sorry But Science Solved Morality – Morality Is Closed
Sorry But Science Solved Morality – Morality Is Closed. https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/17/sorry-but-science-solved-morality-morality-is-closed/
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-17 22:27:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229532826699210755
-
Sorry But Science Solved Morality – Morality Is Closed.
—“so yes, science can tell us what is but not what we ought to do.”—
[T]his is a justificationary position (sophism). |Decidability| = That which is not irreciprocal or false (negatively consequential) -> Value (personal strategy -> Positively Consequential) -> Preference (Inconsequential) [S]cience (law) tells us what we may not do (irreciprocity) – that which is unethical, and immoral. Anything that is not unethical and immoral is merely a PREFERENCE to be settled in the market competition for means and ends. What we ‘ought’ to do is anything we CAN organize voluntarily TO DO that which is not false or irreciprocal. Even so, we can just as equally test positive moral claims by the investments that you make, the externalities caused, and desired outcomes produced. All truth propositions are falsificationary. All moral claims are merely claims that one acts not immorally. All moral propositions, means, and outcomes are testable by reciprocity. All moral propositions are open to triangulation of the returns on investments (compare by ordinality if not cardinality). All moral propositions are decidable by adversarial competition in markets for voluntary production of moral outcomes, given scarcity and competition for means and outcomes. All markets produce empirical results, and as such are scientific. All epistemological questions are the result of falsification by adversarial competition. All moral questions are epistemological questions. All not-evil-immoral-unethical propositions are amoral, ethical, or good, depending upon the means of organizing their production, the structure of their production, and the returns on that production. We can make a claim to means, externalities, or ends, or all three. We can measure the claim, the means, the ends – all three, and do so scientifically. There is nothing in metaphysics, language, psychology, or sociology that cannot be expressed scientifically in these terms. That is a purely scientific statement. Conversely you cannot deny or falsify this statement. Period. If you don’t use these terms one can claim ignorance, on can claim expediency(cost), but one cannot claim anything else. As far as I know, the question of Morality is closed. You can try to create test after test but you will find no test that fails this test.